The Status of Emptiness

[rex]

Not wishing to clutter up the Traditons and Lineages thread with what some might see as Buddhist detritus there was an interesting discussion developing on the status of emptiness. Here's what the Dalai Lama says about the subject (sorry about the lengthy quote, but H.H says it far better than I ever could):

 

"It is important to clarify that we are not speaking of emptiness as some sort of absolute strata of reality, akin to, say, the ancient Indian concept of Brahman, which is conceived to be an underlying absolute reality from which the illusory world of multiplicity emerges. Emptiness is not a core reality, lying somewhere at the heart of the universe, from which the diversity of phenomena arise.

 

Emptiness can only be conceived of in relation to individual things and events. For example, when we speak of emptiness of a form, we are talking about the absolute reality of that form, the fact that it is devoid of intrinsic existence. That emptiness is the ultimate nature of that form. Emptiness exists only as a quality of a particular phenomena; emptiness does not exist separately and independently of particular phenomena.

 

Furthermore, since emptiness can only be understood as ultimate reality in relation to individual phenomena, individual things and events, when an individual phenomenon ceases to exist, the emptiness of that phenomenon will also cease to exist. So, although emptiness is not itself the product of causes and conditions, when a basis for identifying emptiness no longer exists, the emptiness of that thing also ceases to exist."

 

HH Dalai lama, Essence of the Heart Sutra pp.117-118 (from chapter 10, Developing an Unmistaken View of Reality)

[hagar]

Not wishing to clutter up the Traditons and Lineages thread with what some might see as Buddhist detritus there was an interesting discussion developing on the status of emptiness. Here's what the Dalai Lama says about the subject (sorry about the lengthy quote, but H.H says it far better than I ever could):

 

"It is important to clarify that we are not speaking of emptiness as some sort of absolute strata of reality, akin to, say, the ancient Indian concept of Brahman, which is conceived to be an underlying absolute reality from which the illusory world of multiplicity emerges. Emptiness is not a core reality, lying somewhere at the heart of the universe, from which the diversity of phenomena arise.

 

Emptiness can only be conceived of in relation to individual things and events. For example, when we speak of emptiness of a form, we are talking about the absolute reality of that form, the fact that it is devoid of intrinsic existence. That emptiness is the ultimate nature of that form. Emptiness exists only as a quality of a particular phenomena; emptiness does not exist separately and independently of particular phenomena.

 

Furthermore, since emptiness can only be understood as ultimate reality in relation to individual phenomena, individual things and events, when an individual phenomenon ceases to exist, the emptiness of that phenomenon will also cease to exist. So, although emptiness is not itself the product of causes and conditions, when a basis for identifying emptiness no longer exists, the emptiness of that thing also ceases to exist."

 

HH Dalai lama, Essence of the Heart Sutra pp.117-118 (from chapter 10, Developing an Unmistaken View of Reality)

 

I predict this to become a very semantically ridden thread.

 

isn't this resolved in the Chan/Zen concept of the "unborn", or unconditioned. Emptiness, as I read his Holiness is thus a part of duality, in being dependent on existence. But as far as what can be percieved, I must say that I can percieve emptiness independent of phenomena, or any particular context. What then do I call this if it is not "emptiness"?

 

In my naivitè, I've equated "emptiness" with "being", or is-ness, or "thus-ness", or one-ness, or nothingness.

 

So, if His Holiness dictates that these concepts are non-exchangeable, then what do I do. Nothing?

Edited August 5, 2011 by hagar

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi hagar,

 

The concept of the unborn is actually straight from the Pali Suttas, it's not a Zen invention.

 

Also... emptiness relates to the perception or realization that things are empty as well. The phenomena of perception, or the cognitive process of phenomena is also empty.

 

Since things and mind are thus never established to begin with to have intrinsic nature, there is nothing to reject from the very beginning... the nature of all things is already unborn. The experience of this illumines the nature of phenomena as equal with the nature of mind, and this is the non-duality of Buddhism. Not a oneness, but just a not inherent twoness. So, since there is neither something, nor nothing established, there is only thusness, neither one, nor two, not even zero, all frame of references fall from an internal standpoint. Which is where the concept of, "there is a mountain, now there is not a mountain, then there is a mountain again." It's really just using this as a revelation of the process of going from conventional viewing, to seeing through things, then just being with it as free from it after having seen through it. There is nothing to accept nor reject, no ultimate truth, no relative truth... just... empty flow, experienced as the fullness of being.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

I predict this to become a very semantically ridden thread.

 

isn't this resolved in the Chan/Zen concept of the "unborn", or unconditioned. Emptiness, as I read his Holiness is thus a part of duality, in being dependent on existence. But as far as what can be percieved, I must say that I can percieve emptiness independent of phenomena, or any particular context. What then do I call this if it is not "emptiness"?

 

In my naivitè, I've equated "emptiness" with "being", or is-ness, or "thus-ness", or one-ness, or nothingness.

 

So, if His Holiness dictates that these concepts are non-exchangeable, then what do I do. Nothing?

No... you cannot perceive emptiness independent of phenomena, as emptiness too is empty of independent existence, and as a matter of fact you cannot 'perceive emptiness'*.

 

And emptiness is not 'being' -

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

 

How Is Emptiness Nondual?

 

The most common connotation of "nonduality" is "oneness" or "singularity." Many teachings state that everything is actually awareness; those teachings are nondual in the "oneness" sense in which there are no two things.

 

But there is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense.

 

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

 

....

 

Emptiness Itself is Empty

 

Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.

 

Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.

 

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Back to top

 

--------------

 

As for not being able to 'perceive emptiness':

 

 

 

You will never see emptiness in meditation directly for emptiness is a not a thing that can be seen.

 

.....

 

When you don't find anything, that not-finding is finding emptiness.

 

When you don't see anything, that not-seeing is seeing emptiness.

 

- Loppon Namdrol

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

regarding 'unborn' - there are different ways it can be understood,

 

see my article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html

Edited August 5, 2011 by xabir2005

[forestofclarity]

I think it depends on the tradition. In Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, you hear emptiness to mean an absence--- specifically the absence of an enduring self. When Buddhism goes to China, you get this idea of wu to mean more than a mere absence, but a primal potentiality.

[Green Tiger]

Emptiness -- sort of like, the space behind your eyes then, eh?

[Seth Ananda]

I Like these 11 points on Emptiness:

 

Emptiness is not a substance

Emptiness is not a substratum or background

Emptiness is not light

Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

Emptiness is not the Absolute

Emptiness does not exist on its own

Objects do not consist of emptiness

Objects do not arise from emptiness

Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

from this superb article: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

[Seth Ananda]

Also for anyone interested in doing a more in depth study, CowTao put me on to a fantastic book called 'The Sun of wisdom.'

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Wisdom-Teachings-Nagarjunas-Fundamental/dp/1570629994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312550584&sr=8-1

 

It makes Nargajuna very accessible.

 

Thanks again Cow, pricless...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think it depends on the tradition. In Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, you hear emptiness to mean an absence--- specifically the absence of an enduring self. When Buddhism goes to China, you get this idea of wu to mean more than a mere absence, but a primal potentiality.

 

It's true there does seem to be a major Taoist influence on at least the writing of Chan Buddhism if not the idea relating to Emptiness.

 

Nonetheless, I think articulating Emptiness will always be misleading. It may not be a thing, but it is a thing in the same way that absence is a thing, so you could call it a thing, in a way, even though it's not one.

[thelerner]

I was reading a interview with a cousin of Morihei Ueshiba, who seemingly in his own right was a very high level albeit unknown martial arts practitioner. The interviewer was trying to find out what made Ueshiba so extraordinary.

 

He asked "Is it because he abides in nothingness?"

 

The cousin emphatically said "NO, it is because he abides in Everything"

and added "That within Everything there is the emptiness"

 

 

Likewise after years of having us concentrate on tan tien (center) my aikido sensei told us a 'secret'. Being aware of everything around you is the same as concentrating on your center, but its much harder.

[rex]

I predict this to become a very semantically ridden thread.

It wouldn't be TaoBums if it didn't

 

 

But as far as what can be percieved, I must say that I can percieve emptiness independent of phenomena, or any particular context. What then do I call this if it is not "emptiness"?

I'd call this the process of interdependence.

 

isn't this resolved in the Chan/Zen concept of the "unborn", or unconditioned. Emptiness, as I read his Holiness is thus a part of duality, in being dependent on existence ...

 

In my naivitè, I've equated "emptiness" with "being", or is-ness, or "thus-ness", or one-ness, or nothingness.

Forestofempitness also touching on this gave a nice resolution of emptiness and being - primal potentiality. Now this is where it gets semantically very difficult. Emptiness is only half the story, as there is also the Buddhist concept of luminosity though H.H.'s excerpt doesn' t mention this - perhaps because he was expounding on a particular Buddhist philosophical viewpoint that doesn't acknowledge luminosity. Though he states that phenomena don't arise from emptiness do they arise from luminosity? Phrases like 'the magical display of the natural state' come to mind. If so, how is this luminosity/natural state different to Brahman which is specifically denied? Are luminosity and emptiness inseparable? These questions will cause endless debate.

 

So, if His Holiness dictates that these concepts are non-exchangeable, then what do I do. Nothing?

Speaking for myself and knowing that this is a complex area where you can easily get tied up in knots I just carry on practicing and for the time being let emptiness signify 'limitless potential and the impermanence that liberates.'

 

Edited for typos and clarity

Edited August 5, 2011 by rex

[ChiDragon]

May I ask:

Who wants to have the Status of Emptiness...???

What is the ultimate goal to obtain the Status of Emptiness...???

 

Anyone has an answer to these questions.???

[Apech]

May I ask:

Who wants to have the Status of Emptiness...???

What is the ultimate goal to obtain the Status of Emptiness...???

 

Anyone has an answer to these questions.???

 

The first bhumi of a bodhisattva is the joyous realisation of shunyata (emptiness). So anyone following this path would wish to have this realisation.

[Green Tiger]

 

 

Likewise after years of having us concentrate on tan tien (center) my aikido sensei told us a 'secret'. Being aware of everything around you is the same as concentrating on your center, but its much harder.

 

Thank you for sharing that. I had begun to suspect the two were related.

 

EDIT: Might be worth sharing that practicing 8 direction meditation opened me up to that suspicion.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Green Tiger

[Informer]

I would say the 1st point being emptiness is not equivalent to nothingness.

 

I think that some may choose a fixed perspective that would say that it does and only does, which is paradoxical at best

[thelerner]

Thank you for sharing that. I had begun to suspect the two were related.

 

EDIT: Might be worth sharing that practicing 8 direction meditation opened me up to that suspicion.

 

 

What is your 8 direction meditation practice?

 

In Aikido we had some 8 direction 'katas' both sword and empty hand.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think it depends on the tradition. In Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, you hear emptiness to mean an absence--- specifically the absence of an enduring self. When Buddhism goes to China, you get this idea of wu to mean more than a mere absence, but a primal potentiality.

 

Actually, in Indo-Tibetan Mahamudra and Dzogchen you will find emptiness meaning, primordial purity as well as the experience of spontaneous presence as we are talking more about the experience of realizing emptiness rather than just the concept.